Distinguish between (i) Criminal Intimidation and Extortion, and (ii) Criminal Intimidation and Assault (Indian Penal Code, 1860)
(a) A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
(2) The issuing of a notice to a shopkeeper requiring him to execute an agreement not to import for one year any foreign cloth for sale at his shop and intimating that on his failure to do so his shop would be picketed comes within the purview of the offence of criminal intimidation.
A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested falls within the purview of this section.
(i) Criminal intimidation and extortion:
Criminal intimidation is almost analogous to extortion. In extortion, the immediate purpose is obtaining any property or valuable security; in criminal intimidation, the immediate purpose is to induce the person threatened to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or to abstain from doing an act which he is legally entitled to do.
Extortion is committed when the offender is present and the victim is through fear of any injury induced to deliver any property or valuable security; in criminal intimidation the threat need not produce the effect aimed at nor need it be addressed directly to the person intended to be influenced.
In extortion delivery of property is of the essence of the offence, but in criminal intimidation there is no delivery of the property by the victim to the accused.
(ii) Criminal intimidation and assault:
Assault is committed by making some gesture or preparation as to cause any person present to apprehend that criminal force is about to be used to him, but in criminal intimidation there is threat of injury to one’s person, reputation or property with intent to cause harm to him.
In assault there is present apprehension of use of criminal force, while in criminal intimidation the threat of injury is future. Assault is always to one’s person, but in criminal intimidation the threat of injury may be to one’s person, reputation or property.
(b) Whether or not any offence has been committed in the following cases, and if so, what?
(i) With the object of inducing B to give a sum of money in charity to a hospital, A threatened to go on a fast and remain on fast till his wishes are complied with by B.
(ii) In order to bring pressure on the authorities to change the date of examination, a candidate threatens to picket at the gate of the examination hall.
(i) This is criminal intimidation. B is not legally bound to give any sum in charity. A threatens to go on fast in order to compel him to do this. In case B does not do it and a goes on fast, it will injure the reputation of B. Further compelling B to part with money also amounts to injury to his property.
The intention of an in threatening to go on a fast is thus obviously to cause A to do what he is not legally bound to do by injuring his reputation, and thus falls under the offence of criminal intimidation. In Emperor v. Raghubar Dayal, I.L.R. 53 All. 407, picketing has been held to be an offence of criminal intimidation, which is punishable under S. 506, I.P.C.
(ii) This is a case of criminal intimidation to the authorities to do something which they are not legally bound to do. The injury threatened is injury to their own reputation and that of the institution in which they are interested. On the analogy of the decision in Emperor v. Raghubar Dayal, I.L.R. 53 All. 407 this must also be held to be criminal intimidation.